Category: Economy

Business, Development, Economy, housing, Mayor Wilson

Greater Seattle: Inclusionary Zoning, Part 2; Amazon as a Percentage of the Budget; Permitted, but Struggling

By Josh Feit

Last week, I featured Seattle City Councilmember Dionne Foster in an item headlined “Inclusionary Zoning > No Inclusionary Zoning” to reflect her progressive affordable housing stance. However, according to a comprehensive new academic study, she has it backward.

No Inclusionary Zoning > Inclusionary Zoning

So says the study released this summer by an economist at UC Irvine about inclusionary zoning (IZ), a policy that requires builders to couple any market-rate housing they build with affordable housing. Seattle’s version of this—as in Foster’s resolution calling for inclusionary zoning requirements in residential areas where the policy doesn’t currently apply—uses a “fee in lieu” model where developers can pay into an affordable housing fund instead of including the affordable housing in their own projects.

Unlike other (inconclusive) research on IZ, the UC Irvine study had a clean before-and-after look at the policy, thanks to California’s unique history of going through a period when inclusionary zoning (including the fee-in-lieu model) was legal, illegal, and then legal again.

The study indicates inclusionary zoning does the opposite of what it’s intended to do, finding that IZ makes it more expensive to rent. California renters paid approximately $6.97 billion in additional rent in areas with IZ mandates. So, even as IZ funds some affordable units, it comes at a steep cost to renters, including low-income renters, who aren’t “lucky enough to get an IZ unit,” according to the study.

But the real zinger: The study then compared that rent increase to the number of affordable units created and found that it wasn’t worth the tradeoff. As the author bluntly states in the opening summary: “I estimate the cost of generating an affordable unit with inclusionary zoning to be approximately $800,000 [per the 8,990 units created] in ‘excess rents’ paid by market rate renters as a result of the policy’s constraint on supply. This exceeds the cost of directly incentivizing the creation of low-income housing [~$441,00 per unit] in California through existing programs.”

Seattle’s Budget = Amazon’s Stock Price

Speaking of being blunt, Erica didn’t hold back in her report on Mayor Wilson’s $2.5 billion budget proposal last week. And I quote: “JumpStart is Basically Just a Slush Fund Now.”

JumpStart, of course, is the 2020 tax on high-end salaries proposed and passed by former lefty city councilmember Teresa Mosqueda to pay for affordable housing and other progressive priorities. Now, according to a recent economic study commissioned by Seattle’s own Office of Economic Development, it increasingly covers the city’s regular budget shortfalls. Since 2024, when a newly elected city council majority changed the law to eliminate the original JumpStart spending plan, more than half of JumpStart revenues are used to cover the gap between city budget expenditures and general fund revenue.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

I’m not here to cry about that. True believers like me have lost that fight. But here’s a problem with  budgeting-by- JumpStart that everyone should note: The report found that “Seventy-five percent of JumpStart revenue comes from just 10 companies.”

This is emblematic of Seattle’s worrisome status as a one-crop town (big tech). “In summary,” the report states, “the city’s fiscal health now depends on the marginal location and compensation decisions of a handful of employers. It also depends, indirectly, on the stock prices of those employers.”

Zeroing in on the city’s largest company, the report continues: “When Amazon’s stock rises, Seattle’s tax base rises with it; when it falls, the base contracts. (Amazon’s stock price alone has ranged from roughly $85 to $245 over the past three years.) But it means that a fiscal base already concentrated in a few firms is further exposed to the single most volatile attribute of these firms—one the city has no ability to forecast or influence.”

Existing Third Places > New Startups

Wilson explicitly acknowledges the challenge by incorporating her recent “Resilient Economy” executive order  into her budget proposal. Seattle has “become increasingly concentrated on the tech sector,” the EO states. It commits the city to convene a task force “to develop and implement strategies for diversifying and growing Seattle’s economy.”

And while the specifics of the order focus on making it easier to permit and establish startups in tech-adjacent fields, that strikes me as being more top-down than middle-out. As I noted a few weeks ago, the thing that makes Seattle attractive to the talent needed for new startups are third spaces—i.e., existing businesses.

I wish Wilson’s proposal did more for the bars and restaurants and coffeeshops that are already permitted, but increasingly struggling: 67 percent of brick-and-mortar, small, independent businesses told OED they are under more financial stress than during the pandemic. “[Seventy-one] percent reported lower foot traffic than a year earlier, and only 12 percent said customer demand was sufficient to cover their cost structure.”

Josh@Publicola.com

Business, Economy, Urbanism

Greater Seattle: Third Places

By Josh Feit

5,250 > 778

Here’s a rejoinder to those who complain that Seattle’s taxes on big business are going to send major companies fleeing to Bellevue: Seattle has nearly 40 percent more cafes, retail shops, bars, arts and cultural spaces, community centers and food spots per capita than Bellevue.

Known as “third places,” these kinds of public living rooms are considered essential for attracting uniquely mobile high-tech workers away from competing cities.

Last week, the Seattle Department of Economic Development published a new, comprehensive report  about the need for Seattle to foolproof its economy by fostering a more varied set of businesses that participate on the national and international scale. The report, which was written by local economic consultants, cites Seattle’s impressive map of third places as a must-have. “Seattle offers a remarkably rich environment for these connections due to its high concentration of third places mixed into its built environment,” the report states as part of its thesis that third places are an asset for drawing the creative class that’s necessary to resuscitate our flagging startup culture.

The report’s comparison point for what we don’t want to be? Bellevue.

“The difference between Seattle and a less third place-rich region like Bellevue is stark. Seattle has substantially more third places than Bellevue (5,250 vs. 778). Part of this, of course, is a matter of population. But Seattle also has more third places per square mile (63 vs. 23) and per capita than Bellevue (71 vs. 52 per 10,000 residents).”

“Stark” is not hyperbole. When you look at the specifics of Seattle’s 40 percent per-capita advantage over our neighbor across Lake Washington, you can see why young workers would be miserable in Bellevue. While Seattle has more third spaces overall—libraries, community centers, cafes, and gyms, for example—the advantage is stunning when you look at spots that you traditionally associate with “going out.” More than three times as many bars. One-hundred sixty percent more cultural arts venues. Sixty-five percent more shops. Forty-nine percent more dining options.

And, upending stereotypes, Seattle also has more places of worship—by a reverent 42 percent.

Bellevue does beat Seattle in an important category, though. And it’d be good for policy makers at city hall to take note of this. When it comes to parks, Bellevue beats Seattle by 14 percent—7.1 to 6.1 per every 10,000 people.

10 pm > 6 pm

The report doesn’t say how late Seattle’s third spaces stay open on average. That’s important. While people want to move to a city where there’s places to hang out, they likely don’t want to move to a city where there’s a stopwatch ticking on how long they can.  And anecdotally, I can tell you: Shops close too early. This is true in Bellevue as well, but Seattle’s lackluster evening economy is a noteworthy problem in its own right.

From coffee shops to corner stores, from retail to social services, Seattle needs a more energetic nighttime ecosystem. I wrote about this problem decades ago, and I wrote about it again a few years ago, because it’s a defining and persistent shortcoming here. Seattle is too soporific. Newsflash to the rest of country: Seattle is not woke!

A sleepy city undermines equity. The nighttime isn’t just about socializing. If it was easier to take care of business after 5 pm by having greater access to the practical stuff that’s traditionally closed or diminished at night—government services, retail, drug stores, administrative offices, buses, rental visits—people, particularly working-class people, would face fewer barriers to the economic opportunities here.

38 percent > 30 percent

Another thing missing from the report: The evidence to support the consultant’s contention that the creative class workers we need actually gravitate toward third places. I’m not saying I disagree with the report’s thesis. I want it to be true. And it’s certainly logical to assume that creative, young techies like to be out and about.

But is it?

According to a dispiriting essay titled “America is Becoming a Nation of Homebodies,” which urbanist Diana Lind wrote last year, “Americans now spend an average of 99 more minutes at home each day than they did in 2003, while this generation of 15- to 24-year-olds spends 124 more minutes at home than their counterparts two decades ago. Meanwhile, just 30 percent of Americans spent time socializing and communicating in person on an average day, down from 38 percent in 2014, according to [an] American Time Use Survey.”  And another recent report found that Americans are also speaking less—and that the issue is especially pronounced among people younger than 25.

Numbers detailing Seattle’s penchant for being out and about—and how those numbers are trending—would be helpful to have if urbanists want to backup the OED consultant’s third-place advocacy for “face-to-face communication” and “connections.”

The World Cup social scene may have been an aberration. But compared to the crowds I’m seeing at art walks, game days, Saturday night on Capitol Hill, lines at popups, music and cultural events, and crowded coffee shops these days, it wasn’t a huge aberration. Seattle seems like it’s hopping. It’d be nice to know if that’s true.

Josh@PubliCola.com

City Council, Crime, Economy, Mayor Wilson

This Week on PubliCola: Building a Less “Fragile” Seattle Economy, Addressing Gun Violence, and Is It Selfish to Live Alone?

By Erica C. Barnett

Tuesday, September 8

Greater Seattle: Late Press Conferences, On-Time Buses, Selfish Housing

In this week’s column, Josh tackled the media-generated narrative that blamed Mayor Katie Wilson, rather than SPD, for a delayed SPD press release; praised the new Denny Way bus lane for turning the L8 into the Gr8; and wondered whether he should take on several new roommates, in response to a Seattle Times column that blamed people who live alone (rather than Seattle’s endless refusal to densify) for the housing crisis.

Investigation Report: Trip to Strip Club on Civil Rights Office Trip Was Sexual Harassment

An investigation into some of the employee allegations against Seattle Office for Civil Rights director Derrick Wheeler-Smith found that going to a strip club with an employee on a city-sponsored trip constituted sexual harassment, but that misogynistic and transphobic texts did not. Employees accused Wheeler-Smith of discrimination and harassment earlier this year, and he has been on paid leave since March.

Wednesday, September 9

Saka’s Messy Transportation Bill Gets Messier

City Councilmember Rob Saka’s mostly nonsubstantive transportation safety legislation—rolled out hastily one day before the mayor announced executive orders on the same subject—became more bloated over council recess, but would still have very little real-world impact.

Controversial Group We Heart Seattle Makes City’s Official Volunteer Day Roster

We Heart Seattle, a group whose leader films vulnerable homeless people to promote a punitive, staunchly conservative agenda, got city approval to include one of its encampment “cleanups” in this year’s citywide day of volunteerism. The group is under state investigation for allegedly failing to properly train volunteers to pick up and dispose of needles and other potentially dangerous items.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

 

Thursday, September 10

Consultants, New Staffers Fill Out Mayor’s Communications Team

Mayor Katie Wilson, whose communications staff has seen high turnover through most of her term so far, has hired a permanent communications director and press secretary—along with a number of consultants, including one who’s getting$10,000 to write this year’s budget speech.

Maritza Rivera Overstates Gun Violence, Pushes Mayor to Pre-Commit to Handpicked “Focused Deterrence” Contractor

City Councilmember Maritza Rivera is insisting that Mayor Wilson commit in advance to hire a specific contractor, at a cost of $418,000, to implement a “focused deterrence” approach to gun violence. This approach has been successful in places where most shootings involve a small group of people, which may or may not be the case in Seattle—a city where fatal shootings are much rarer than in other cities.

Friday, September 11

Report Recommends Diversifying Seattle Economy; Wilson’s Plan Would Initiate that Process, But Slowly

A report from Brookings-affiliated researchers concluded that the city is far too reliant on a tiny handful of massive tech companies, and has failed to nurture startups and mid-size companies that could sustain the economy here even if the big tech firms shrink or move to Bellevue. The report, which includes counterintuitive data on Seattle’s economy and tax base, was the basis for a Wilson executive order that directs the city to figure out ways to implement its recommendations.

Also this week: I was on City Cast Seattle with guest host Brett Hamil and Seattle Times reporter Claire Bryan on Friday. Claire got us up to speed on what’s happening with Seattle Public Schools’ budget (and I went off about AI in schools). Then, Brett and I discussed my reporting on the real reason for the communications breakdown after the Bite of Seattle shooting in July. I’ll be a regular guest on City Cast in the future, so tune in!

This week’s episode of Seattle Nice features returning guest Daniel Malone, from the Downtown Emergency Service Center. He got us up to speed on how DESC’s Opioid Recovery and Care Access (ORCA) center is doing one year in (so far, they’ve had more than 10,000 post-overdose encounters), the 95-bed STAR shelter downtown that replaced the Navigation Center in Little Saigon, and the status of the Trump Administration’s efforts to defund the kind of permanent supportive housing DESC provides.

Note to readers: I will be out of town for most of the next two weeks, so look for my stories on the mayor’s new gun violence reduction strategy, further discussion of Dan Strauss’ proposal to ban unregistered RVs from Seattle, and the mayor’s budget announcement after I get back on Thursday, September 24!

Meantime, my birthday is coming up next week, and I would appreciate nothing more than a contribution to PubliCola, the independent news source you’re reading. Lots of options, from one-time or ongoing Paypal contributions to a P.O. box where you can send a check, can be found right here.

Economy, Mayor Wilson, Taxes

Report Recommends Diversifying Seattle Economy; Wilson’s Plan Would Initiate that Process, But Slowly

By Erica C. Barnett

A comprehensive, 127-page report on the city’s business and taxing climate recommends that Seattle start taking steps to diversify its tax base beyond the handful of large tech firms that now dominate the city, by cultivating startups in areas like AI, green energy and the maritime industry and helping them grow into mature, mid-size companies that stay in Seattle instead of expanding somewhere else.

“While Seattle’s startup activity is modest and declining, its ability to grow firms is mediocre at best,” the report, published by a group of researchers headed up by a Brookings-affiliated researcher named Ryan Donahue, says. Of 303 tech companies that were founded in the Seattle area between 2015 and 2019, only 33 have grown to more than 50 employees. At the same time, Seattle has failed to attract midsize firms, adding just 16 net new midsize tech companies between 2017 and 2023, compared to 104 in San Francisco and 51 in Austin. “Scaling that missing middle is the challenge around which economic development should be organized.”

“Seattle needs firms that are economically distant enough from the tech sector for their fates to be disentangled, yet economically close enough that access to tech talent and customers justifies Seattle prices. Envision a battery or satellite company that wants to engineer and assemble prototypes that could eventually be produced at scale, but also needs a few top-tier AI researchers at hand.”

Failing to diversify, the report notes, keeps Seattle dependent on the decisions of the handful of companies that make up its tax base. If those firms shrink or relocate, other local businesses that depend on wealthy tech workers, like restaurants and retail, will also take a hit.

The situation the report describes won’t be too surprising to anyone who has followed the ups and downs of Seattle’s JumpStart tax, which gets 75 percent of its revenue from just 10 companies, all but one in tech. (JumpStart taxes large Seattle businesses based on individual employee compensation above an annually adjusted threshold; revenue from the tax depends not just on how many highly-paid employees are at each firm but how the value of companies’ stock in any given year.)

The tax, which was created to fund affordable housing and other progressive priorities but now goes largely to the city’s general fund, has proven to be extremely volatile—less of an issue if it’s funding one-time adds, more of a crisis if the entire budget depends on its stability. “The report puts it bluntly: “The city’s fiscal health now depends on the marginal location and compensation decisions of a handful of employers.”

“The strategy is to move them deliberately: helping software-adjacent ‘hardtech’ firms in areas like cleantech, commercial space, maritime, and life sciences scale in the city; enabling mid-career engineers leaving anchor firms to start and join new companies rather than leave town; and using climate policy and the City’s control of Seattle City Light as an accelerant for deployment of clean energy technologies, enabling growth and stimulating innovation.”

The report includes a number of specific recommendations—like creating a public development authority that can issue contracts and make investments, investing in child care construction as well as child care subsidies, eliminating parking requirements and increasing density, and and reducing the amount of time it takes businesses to get permits.

In response to the report, Wilson announced a series of actions, via executive order, designed to spur startup development. They include:

  • A new “Seattle Strategic Initiatives Fund” designed to “make a meaningful impact in diversifying our economy and supporting new business creation and growth in targeted sectors”;
  •  A “Resilient Seattle Economy Task Force” that will come up with recommendations for Seattle attract, retain, and grow businesses, “particularly in key and innovative industries where City action can tip the scales towards success including cleantech and the creative economy”; and
  • Regulatory and permitting changes designed to a to make it easier for businesses, from emerging “cleantech” companies to child care, to get started and grow.

As the report notes, any strategy to steer a city’s entire economy in a different direction is a long-term project—and mayors only have four-year terms. Another challenge is the city’s ongoing “structural” deficit, which is approaching $200 million.

While the report lays out potential solutions to the city’s unbalanced dependence on a few tech companies, it also includes a number of fascinating insights into Seattle’s economy and budget that make it clear that the sky is not actually falling—at least not in the way that many of the region’s reactionary centrists tend to claim. Some key stats from the report:

Wages grew faster in Seattle than in almost any other US metropolitan area, across the entire income scale—but costs grew faster. “Workers at the 25th percentile earn roughly 15 percent more after adjusting for cost-of-living than peers in places seen as more hospitable to middle-income earners like Atlanta, Charlotte, or Minneapolis,” which translates to about $6,000 a year.

At the same time, the cost of living grew faster here than in most places, making it much more expensive to be poor or middle-class here than in other parts of the country. For instance, even though the lowest-paid quarter of Seattle workers make more than they do in Austin or Denver, the gap between an “affordable” rent and what they earn is more than $1,500 a month.

Having kids nearly doubles the annual cost for a couple to maintain a “basic standard of living,” driven largely by the $41,000 average annual cost for child care. This is one reason the report recommends treating child care businesses “as workforce infrastructure rather than a social service.”

Adding more people, and allowing them to live densely, is necessary. This isn’t just growth for the sake of growth—it’s the way Seattle will keep its economy afloat and close its budget deficit.

“Seattle needs more people to move to the city and more businesses to start and grow in the city because Seattle’s tax revenue, especially property and sales tax revenue, depends on it. If the city stopped growing, the only way to increase revenue would be to increase the tax burden on existing residents and businesses. … A growing economy, by contrast, generates new revenue even at stable tax rates.”

The barriers to adding more people are familiar: Seattle makes it too hard to build new housing, which drives up costs. The report recommends allowing 12-story apartment buildings within two blocks of major transit corridors and getting rid of most minimum parking requirements, two changes Seattle has historically been reluctant to make because of homeowner opposition.

Much as businesses complain about taxes across the board, Seattle’s taxes are “middle of the road.” However, tax increases in recent years have been heavily weighted toward the largest tech companies in ways they perceive as unfair, and Bellevue is a viable, lower-tax option for firms that don’t want to leave the region entirely.

“Taxes are relatively low, and they are increasing extremely quickly for the firms that Seattle policymakers targeted with recent tax policy changes,” the report says. Jumpstart alone adds about $17,000 in taxes for a senior software engineer making $650,000 a year, “while San Francisco imposes no per-employee tax and New York City’s equivalent is under $6,000.”

Taxes are also significantly lower in Bellevue, which the report identifies as Seattle’s key competitor for tech jobs. For Amazon, identified as “the mega tech company” in the report, moving to Bellevue would save it a total of $400 million a year, including about $12,000 per employee in Seattle-only taxes. Most companies don’t decide where to locate based primarily on tax rates, according to the report, but Seattle may be nearing the limit of its ability to increase taxes on businesses without facing consequences.

 

Wilson’s executive order sets a deadline of next September for most of the its goals, meaning that the city may not start implementing any changes until halfway through the mayor’s term. This is an inherent problem with long-term initiatives pushed by individual leaders, especially mayors, who (in Seattle) tend to serve a single term. If the goals recommended in the city-commissioned report are the right ones, it would almost certainly be more effective to move quickly, especially on ideas—like goosing housing construction through regulatory reform—that have been percolating in Seattle for years or decades.

 

 

Economy, Maybe Metropolis

Maybe Metropolis: French Revolution Vibes

By Josh Feit

Seattle’s capitalist class gathered last week in the fifth-floor ballroom of the $2 billion Pine St. convention center for the Downtown Seattle Association’s annual state-of-downtown shindig.. Mayor Katie Wilson, who playfully identified herself as a socialist, received a tepid—though hardly hostile— response as she defended higher taxes while bonding with the establishment camp on the need to improve public safety.

As they do every year, the DSA paired the event with a user-friendly report on the economic state of downtown, which they define as 13 distinct neighborhoods that stretch from SoDo to Lower Queen Anne and from the Chinatown/International District to the western blocks of  Capitol Hill. The boosterish report had lots to brag about this year: An uptick in downtown visitors and daily foot traffic. An increase in occupied apartments, new units,, and new businesses. And a decrease in violent crime. One troubling footnote: A drop in new housing permits, the precursor to a construction and housing downturn.

Here’s something I found even more concerning. I got French Revolution vibes reading the DSA’s descriptions of who’s keeping downtown flush.

According to the group’s Downtown Seattle retail assessment, a 2025 snapshot of downtown consumers courtesy of DSA consultant Downtown Works and analytics from mapping software company Esri, there are five key demographics driving the downtown economy. They are: 1) Metro Renters (34.7 percent of downtown shoppers): “Young, educated, professionally ambitious, tech natives;” 2) Laptops & Lattes (21.1 percent): “Digitally connected, trend-conscious, experience-driven”; Urban Chic (19.8 percent): “Health-conscious, financially savvy, globally connected”; 4) Top-Tier (8.7 percent): “Affluent, cultured, service-oriented urban dwellers”; and 5) Trendsetters (6.1 percent): “Tech-savvy, health-minded, socially engaged.”

And while it’s a bit hard to tell the difference between thee five discrete groups, the Top-Tier crowd is specifically differentiated as hyper-wealthy. As in: “The pinnacle of affluence, earning more than three times the U.S. average household income and enjoying an average net worth exceeding $3 million.” This is as opposed to the Metro Renters, who are explicitly described as younger and who “Prefer generic and budget-friendly brands when shopping.”

Otherwise, the five categories, which read like they were written by AI, an intern, or both, seem indistinguishable. They are all educated, tech savvy, health conscious, environmentally conscious, and active. And the Urban Chic certainly don’t seem that different than the Top-Tier. “They indulge in the finer things—imported wines, organic foods, luxury cars and world travel. Equally at home in yoga studios, ski resorts and art galleries, these discerning consumers prize both wellness and worldly experiences.”

As I said, French Revolution vibes. For those who haven’t seen Metropolis, Fritz Lang’s early-20th century sci-fi masterpiece about a mob-rule proletarian revolution, these descriptions are reminiscent of the super rich in the “Garden of Delights,” who live sequestered above the toiling city before the violent revolution. A more modern reference? Think of President Snow and Effie Trinket lounging in the Capitol in The Hunger Games. 

I’m not one of those Gen Xers who’s nostalgic for the ’90s. In fact, I think Capitol Hill is more diverse and more exciting these days. However, as I float around the coffeehouses and bars on the Capitol Hill circuit, I’ve duly noted how dramatically the typical topics of conversation have changed over the years—from bohemian concerns such as politics, underground theater, and feminism to 9-to-5, normie talking points, like Monday’s stand-up meeting, investment strategies, and weddings.

In that context, the Urban Chic who “indulge in the finer things,” the Trendsetters “who crave the latest in branded fashion and tech” alongside the Top-Tier who “channel their disposable income into organic foods, fitness clubs, stylish wardrobes, travel, arts,” represent a red flag for a renter-majority city where half are cost-burdened, spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. A city that relies on rarefied lifestyles at this extreme is not sustainable.

In other words, it’s no wonder that, against the preference of Seattle’s business establishment, the majority of Seattle elected a socialist mayor this past November. The DSA members might not like Mayor Wilson’s pitch for progressive taxation, but if we don’t go that route, the inequality DSA inadvertently portrayed with its Marie Antoinette character sketches also paints a volatile picture. Howard Schultz may have been wise to flee Seattle last week.

Footnote: The DSA profiles don’t add up to 100 percent of downtown’s customer base. Evidently, shoppers who account for 10 percent of downtown customers are going unnamed.

Economy, Mayor Wilson, Opinion

Mayor Wilson Defies Convention at Annual Downtown Business Event
View from the cheap cheap cheap cheap seats at Wednesday’s State of Downtown Seattle event.

By Erica C. Barnett

During the Downtown Seattle Association’s event celebrating the annual State of Downtown Seattle report yesterday, I got a kick out of Mayor Katie Wilson’s speech, in which she cheerfully defied expectations for political speeches at this glad-handing event. Wilson spoke after King County Executive Girmay Zahliay, who touted his three-day-a-week return-to-office mandate to surprisingly tepid applause.

It wasn’t that Wilson didn’t kowtow a bit to her corporate audience—saying, for example, that she wants to “keep our parks and public spaces welcoming and accessible to all” by “finally … putting people inside in large numbers.” People experiencing behavioral health crises “can make  the people around them feel less safe,” Wilson said. “We have to acknowledge that, and we have to do more to make all of our streets and public spaces feel more welcoming for people of all incomes and backgrounds, whether they live downtown or tourists visiting our city for the first time.”

But Wilson also used the occasion to frame a commitment to good government as an explicitly left-wing priority. “As a progressive and as a socialist— as a progressive and as a socialist—I believe it’s very important for people to have faith in their government, and that means, among other things, being able to trust that it is a good and effective steward of our collective resources. We can’t be afraid to stop funding things that aren’t working well.” (Ahem.)

The keynote speaker, Atlantic writer Derek Thompson, was the co-author (along with New York Times columnist Ezra Klein), of Abundance—the book every pro-market urbanist in your life was urging you to read last year. Sounds like this was happening to Wilson, too, and she finally get around to reading it after the election.

It was pretty clear Wilson wasn’t as taken with the book as those who embraced it as a clever takedown of progressive dogma. If I had to guess, I’d say that’s because she saw through its paper-thin thesis—that if liberals would only become libertarians, we’d live in an age of abundant housing, transportation, consumer products, and energy.

“Some of you might know that in my prior career, in addition to being a community organizer, I was also a columnist who’s written for some of our local publications, and I’m sure that if I hadn’t been running for office last year, I would have found time to write my critical take on the abundance framework,” Wilson said. “Now I’m in a role where I have to muzzle myself a little bit, so I’m going to resist the temptation, having an audience with Derek, to give my Abundance TED Talk.”

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Instead, she said, she’d focus on some things she liked from the book, like the Urbanism 101 argument that NIMBY land-use restrictions prevent housing from being built.

“I have to say, I also really love the abundance vision of the world, in the not-far-off year of 2050, when we’ve achieved such abundance and productivity that the work week has been shortened to just a few days,” Wilson continued. “I do hope that 10 or so years from now, when AI has thoroughly disrupted the job market, and you start hearing a national rally cry for a 24-hour work week, that many of the far-sighted business leaders here today will hop on board that train.”

I haven’t reviewed Abundance, and I’ll try not to here, but the few minutes I saw of Thompson’s PowerPoint presentation before I had to leave for an event across were pretty misleading examples—tailored for a a roomful of business elites who are inclined to oppose taxes and believe in the awesome power of free markets.

Thompson extolled Lakewood, a suburb of L.A., as an example of the dense housing that can happen in the suburbs when government gets out of the way. (Lakewood, as a contrast to Petaluma in Northern California, is a central example in the book.) But Lakewood sits on an artificial oasis in what would otherwise be harsh, unwelcoming desert, and that oasis was made possible by government intervention in the early 20th century, when Los Angeles diverted water from farmland, destroying farmers’ livelihoods to build a city in an otherwise uninhabitable area. The conflict became known as the Water Wars.

Similarly, Thompson’s praise for Texas and its vast solar farms would be inspiring, except that Texas (where I’m from) has a notoriously unreliable power grid—a fact that the dominant Republicans in the state, including Gov. Greg Abbott, have falsely blamed on renewable energy. They’ve also been working steadily for the past decade to undermine wind and solar while doubling down on fossil-fuel subsidies—but never mind that, look at this slide of a solar farm!

Thompson brushed past another example of what he considers anti-“abundance” waste—the fact that affordable housing for low-income and formerly homeless people costs more to build than market rate apartments—by saying there was no reason for this to be the case. While it’s true that rules for affordable housing can increase costs, a bigger cost driver financing, which typically comes from many public and private sources and can take months or years to secure. Eliminating unnecessary regulation is important, but it’s only part of the story—and  “abundance” advocates often simply ignore the reasons for some regulations, such as building codes and accessibility requirements.

As I said, I ducked out of Thompson’s talk after about two minutes (remember, I did read the book.*) But I hope the mayor will elaborate at some point—maybe on Seattle Nice!—about her reaction to the “libertarian, but make it pro-social” argument at the center of this bestseller.

*  Which, by the way, also lacks any substantive class or racial analysis and conveniently elides the experience of poor people in the US and the rest of the world. Somebody’s gotta mine all those rare-earth metals, pose as AI sexbots, and pilot those “autonomous” delivery robots, after all, and it ain’t gonna be the elites who write bestselling books promising us a frictionless technotopia is right around the corner.